On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the >> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world >> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice >> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance. >> >> > OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a > local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will > suffice at this point. > > > Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to >> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin >> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the >> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI. >> > > The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no > non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just > answer the question. > > > Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. >> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still >> have not come up with any credible explanation. >> >> >> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in Tipler’s paper, and it is >> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach. >> > > And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not > successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just > reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced > that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the > Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on > what, exactly, we are talking about. > > Bruce >
EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't really changed the world. http://settheory.net/many-worlds The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened. *The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox* Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10% probability that they get the same result. So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same weight of 1/2 each. In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2. Then, Alice and Bob meet again. Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail, Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90% of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail. Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of Alice-tail. Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result. For her this changes essentially nothing : When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10% of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who says "Tail". But bob's experience here is a bit different : Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of (10% Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% probability) or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself between Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities. Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her, into either Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10% probability). and *Many Worlds Model resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen* *paradox via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition that* *preserves Einstein Locality * https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1674.pdf And the "reverse" of many worlds (sum-over-histories): https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/rsorkin/some.papers/63.eprb.pdf @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a94e541d-47ad-4223-a048-936b686b373e%40googlegroups.com.
